Orissa High Court
Rashmi Ranjan Bhol @ Silu vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 24 April, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL NO.848 of 2025
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
Rashmi Ranjan Bhol @ Silu ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. Bishnu Prasad
Pradhan, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. A.K. Apat, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:24.04.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This is the 5th bail application U/S.483 of BNSS
by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with
STF(CID-CB) PS Case No.12 of 2022 corresponding to TR
Case No.206 of 2022 pending in the file of learned 3rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, for commission
of offences punishable under Sections 21(C)/29 of the
NDPS Act, on the main allegation of receiving a
consignment of Brown Sugar weighing 1238 Grams from
the co-accused Kapildev Majumdar.
2. Heard Mr. Bishnu Prasad Pradhan, learned
counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused
the record.
3. No doubt Mr. Pradhan, however, by taking this
Court through its earlier order passed on 10.07.2024
submits that although this Court intends for early disposal
of the case, but the trial in this case is yet to be
concluded and, therefore, the Petitioner may kindly be
granted bail, but trial has already been commenced with
examination of four witnesses in the meanwhile. Notably,
there is allegation against the Petitioner for possessing
1238 grams of Brown Sugar which is coming under
commercial quantity and thereby, the petitioner is
required to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act.
In the aforesaid circumstance of allegations against the
Petitioner and ongoing though the evidence of the
witnesses vis-à-vis the materials placed on record, this
Court does not find any reasonable ground for believing
that the accused-Petitioner is not guilty of such offence
and he is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail,
which is mandate of Section 37 of NDPS Act. In this
context, this Court considers it useful to refer to the
decision in Narcotic Control Bureau Vrs.
Kashif;(2024) SCC Online SC 3848, wherein the Apex
Court in Paragraph No.8 has been pleased to hold as
under:
COMPLIANCE OF THE MANDATE UNDER SECTION 37:
"8. There has been consistent and persistent
view of this Court that in the NDPS cases,
where the offence is punishable with
minimum sentence of ten years, the
accused shall generally be not released on
bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its
grant is an exception. While considering the
application for bail, the court has to bear in mind
the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
which are mandatory in nature.
The recording of finding as mandated in
Section 37 is a sine qua non for granting
bail to the accused involved in the offences
under the said Act. Apart from the granting
opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor,
the other two conditions i.e., (i) the satisfaction
of the court that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that the accused is not guilty of the
alleged offence and that (ii) he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail, are the
cumulative and not alternative conditions.
4. In the context to submissions of the Petitioner
with regard to the delay in disposal of the case, this Court
considers it proper to refer to a recent decision of the
Apex Court in Narcotic Control Bureau Vrs. Mohit
Agarwal; (2022) 18 SCC 374, wherein the Apex Court
by considering its earlier judgment on the compliance of
Section 37 of NDPS Act has held as under:-
"The length of the period of his custody or the
fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the
trial has commenced are by themselves not
considerations that can be treated as persuasive
grounds for granting relief to the respondent
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act."
Further, in Kashif(supra) the Apex Court has
summarized its conclusion in Paragraph No. 39 and some
of such conclusions which are relevant for the purpose of
adjudication of this bail application are extracted as
under:-
"39.(i) The provisions of NDPS Act are
required to be interpreted keeping in mind
the scheme, object and purpose of the Act;
as also the impact on the society as a
whole. It has to be interpreted literally and
not liberally, which may ultimately
frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble
of the Act.
(ii) While considering the application for bail, the
Court must bear in mind the provisions of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory
in nature. Recording of findings as
mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is
known for granting bail to the accused
involved in the offences under the NDPS
Act.
xx xx xxx xxx xxx
(vi) Any lapse or delay in compliance of
Section 52A by itself would neither vitiate
the trial nor would entitle the accused to be
released on bail. The Court will have to
consider other circumstances and the other
primary evidence collected during the course of
investigation, as also the statutory presumption
permissible under Section 54 of the NDPS Act."
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance
and following the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
decisions referred to above and applying the principle as
culled out by the Apex Court in these decisions to the
facts of this case and the Petitioner having not satisfied
the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner.
Hence, the bail application of the petitioner
stands rejected.
6. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
(G. Satapathy)
Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Judge
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 25-Apr-2025 15:31:56
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 24th day of April, 2025/Priyajit
